breaking and entering - santa clara county, california...breaking and entering: a profile of 100...
TRANSCRIPT
Breaking and Entering:
A Profile of 100 Burglars
The Crime Strategies Unit
Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office
Prepared By: Katherine Keller & Marisa McKeown
Residential burglaries are one of the most common felonies committed in Santa Clara County. In
2016, the City of San Jose experienced over 4000 burglaries. While burglars usually do not cause
physical harm to their victims, these crimes are very invasive and can greatly shake victims’
sense of security. Burglary of a residence is the crime of breaking into a dwelling with the intent
to steal or commit a felony therein, as distinguished from a robbery where the perpetrator uses
violence or threats to take property from a victim. Burglary victims are at risk of prolonged
psychological harm. Peer-reviewed psychological studies find that “the psychological impact of
burglary is considerable and may last for an extended period of time,” with victims reporting that
they felt significantly “anxious, hostile, depressed, tired and confused, and experienced more
psychological distress1. It is crucial that we examine these cases to assess how best we can solve
the crimes, give closure to victims, and prevent the burglars from reoffending.
To this end, the Crime Strategies Unit sought to comprehensively examine the backgrounds,
demographics, criminal activity, and outcomes of 100 residential burglars. The report examined
100 charged Santa Clara County residential burglary cases from 2010. Each file was examined to
learn about the offenders, the offense and the outcome of the case. One goal of the study was to
understand this group of defendants – the situation that led them to commit their crimes, the
crimes themselves, their experience in court, and what happened to them after they served their
sentences.
This group of defendants provides insight into trends in burglary offenses, trials, and recidivism.
The defendants were relatively young – averaging in their mid-twenties – but almost all had
some sort of criminal record. Most came from less wealthy neighborhoods than their victims, but
few traveled more than 20 miles to commit their crimes. They were motivated by financial
desperation, homelessness, and drugs, and largely their vehicles, victims, and stolen property
gave them away to police. They moved relatively quickly through the judicial process and almost
always settled on plea deals. While a significant group did not reoffend, the majority did – their
relationships with the criminal justice system and the prison system continued with new felonies
that often became serious and violent.
By understanding the factors that lead to these crimes, and the outcomes of these investigations,
law enforcement and the community can begin to address the complex issues underlying these
serious crimes and the individuals who commit them.
1 Beaton, Alan, et al. "The psychological impact of burglary." Psychology, Crime & Law 6.1 (2000): 33-
43.
Demographic Information
Of the 100 defendants examined, there were 87 men and 13 women. Many defendants were relatively
young at the time of their offense. The average age of the offenders was 27.49. 13 defendants were only
18 years old. In this sample population, 42% of the defendants were Hispanic/Latino, 32% were
White/Caucasian, and Black/African-American defendants were 10% of the overall group.
27
20
15
9
5 4
7
3 20
4 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 39-41 42-44 45-47 48-50 More
Nu
mb
er
of
De
fen
dan
ts
Age
Age at Offense
White/Caucasian: 32%
Asian: 13%
Black/Afr.Amer.: 10%
Hispanic/Latino: 42%
Other: 3%
DEFENDANTS' RACE
13 had no prior criminal record.
15 only had prior misdemeanor convictions.
62 had prior felony convictions.
31 had serious felonies.
7 had violent felonies.
Prior Crimes
An important component of this study was a careful analysis of prior offending. To complete the review,
adult and juvenile offender information was examined. This included, when applicable, state, local and
federal charges. The vast majority of offenders had a criminal history before committing a burglary. All
but 13 had a prior criminal history, and the majority (62%) had prior felony convictions. Of the 62
offenders with prior felony history, they averaged 3.94 felonies each before committing their burglary
offense.
In examining the prior felony convictions of the burglars, we see that many of them had a long felony
offending history before their burglary case. The distribution of prior felonies among the 100 defendants
is summarized in the histogram below:
These include 45 with burglary- and
theft- related felony convictions.
These include 15 with res. burglary
convictions.
6 of these violent felonies were
robberies. 1 was a sexual assault.
38
12 1410 8
3 5 2 4 4
0
10
20
30
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 More
# o
f D
efe
nd
ants
# of Prior Felonies
Prior Felonies
Do Burglars Target Wealthier Neighborhoods?
A commonly held belief about burglary suspects is that they travel from around the bay area to commit
their crimes, often in wealthier neighborhoods. To determine the validity of this belief, we examined the
defendant’s resdiential zip code and compared it to the zip code of the burgled home. Examination of the
data showed that in 47% of cases the burglars traveled to a wealthier zip code to offend, while in 22% of
cases they travelled to a less wealthy neighborhood.
Burglars came from poorer zip codes than the ones in which they committed burglaries. On average, the
burglars came from zip codes with a median income of $82,946. Meanwhile, the average victim lived in a
zip code with a median income of $97,003. 2
Do Burglars Travel Far to Commit Crime?
While defendants tended to choose wealthier neighborhoods to commit their burglaries, most did not
travel far from their own neighborhoods. In fact, 59 of the 100 defendants in the study stayed within 10
miles of their zip code, and 80 stayed within 20 miles. A smaller proportion of defendants traveled a long
way to commit their crimes, with 7 committing their crime over 90 miles from their listed residence.
2 United States Census Bureau. “Community Facts.” 2016. factfinder.census.gov.
NO DATA2%
IN A WEALTHIER ZIP
CODE47%
IN A LESS WEALTHY ZIP
CODE22%
IN THE SAME ZIP CODE
29%
WHERE DID BURGLARS OFFEND?
In which neighborhoods do burglars and victims reside?
The following map summarizes burglars’ and victims’ approximate addresses within Santa Clara County.
Neighborhoods with more blue indicate that more victims live there; neighborhoods with more red
indicate that more burglars live there.
For an interactive map that includes data from outside the county, follow this link.
29 30
21
42
0 03
1 13 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
same zip 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 More
Nu
mb
er
of
De
fen
dan
ts
Miles
Distance Traveled
Why Did They Commit This Offense?
Any information about a defendant’s motivation to commit the offense is wholly based on the self-report
of the offender. This information was often reported after the defendant pled guilty but provides a helpful
context for why burglars claim to offend. Drugs were a commonly reported motivation for defendants’
criminal conduct. Further, 15 defendants were homeless, and 9 others also reported financial desperation
as their motive.
Solving The Crimes
Vehicles, witnesses, and recovered stolen property all played large roles in police departments’ success in
solving the cases. Often, more than one of these evidence categories was used to arrest the defendants.
24
30
9
12
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
financialdesperation /homelessness
drugs interpersonal gang mental health
Motivation for Burglary
33
2730
36
10
16
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
vehicle hot prowl witness ID property ID fingerprints surveillance internet /phone
records
Evidence Leading to Arrest
Most defendants did not know the victims whom they burglarized, although a prominent minority did. Of
these group, family and romantic relationships between burglars and defendants were common.
Defendants who successfully escaped with property before being caught by police stole an average of
$6739 worth of property, though there were many crimes in which less than $1000 was stolen. A minority
of defendants stole over $10,000 worth, with one notable individual stealing $83,200 worth of jewelry
and electronics.
No relationship: 65
Family: 7
Romantic: 6
Other: 22
Some relationship:
35
Relationship to Victim
24
16
8
5 4 4 4
1 24
2
5
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-15 15-20 More
Nu
mb
er
of
De
fen
dan
ts
Thousands of Dollars
Value of Property Stolen
Court Data: Defense Side
The defendants’ representation in court was consistent with most cases in the county, with the majority of
defendants represented by the Public Defender’s office.
Those defendants who were represented by a private attorney had the longest sentences on average,
followed by those represented by the Public Defender’s Office, then the Alternate Defender’s Office, then
the Independent Defender’s Office.
Private Attorney: 21%
Public Defender: 56%
Alternate Defender: 14%
Independent Defender: 9%
DEFENSE TYPE
3.48
2.83
2.21
1.57
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Private Attorney Public Defender Alternate Defender IndependentDefender
Year
s
Average Sentence Length by Defense Type
Court Data: Disposition and Sentencing
All of the 100 cases in this study had at least one charged residential burglary count, and some of the
cases also involved other charges (other burglaries, possession of stolen property, etc.). The vast majority
of cases reached an early settlement; only two went to trial. Given that many cases resolved before trial,
71 of the defendants were not convicted of all the counts with which they were charged. In 37 cases, at
least one felony charge was dismissed, and 21 defendants had a felony reduced to a non-serious offense,
meaning it was no longer a “strike” under California’s Three Strikes Law. In only 3 cases were all
felonies dismissed.
The defendants had to serve an average of 2.76 years for their sentence, with the most common sentence
being 1 year in jail with a probationary supervision “tail”. In the diagram below we see that 43 of the 100
defendants went to prison for their 2010 crimes (and 57 got a year or less).
29
7
3
37
21
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
as charged allegationdismissed
misdemeanordismissed
felonydismissed
no longer strike all feloniesdismissed
Disposition Outcome
27
30
18
68
2 2 3 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
less than 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 More
Nu
mb
er
of
De
fen
dan
ts
Years
Sentence Length
43 defendants went to prison for
their 2010 crimes.
In Depth Analysis of Offenders Before AND After 2010:
One of the primary goals of this study was to understand what impact a defendant’s sentence played on
future offending. If a defendant got a jail/probation sentence, did they fare better than counterparts who
got a prison sentence? In the pages that follow, the path of these defendants is visually displayed and
paints a complicated picture.
Out of 100 defendants who committed burglaries in 2010…
➢ 30 had previously been to prison.
➢ 19 went to prison for the first time in 2010.
➢ 19 avoided prison in 2010, but went to prison thereafter.
➢ 32 have fully avoided prison to this day.
➢ As shown above, 43 went to prison for their 2010 offense.
A closer look at defendants’ paths through the prison system appears on the following pages.
Defendants with Prison Priors: Jail vs. Prison
* The width of a given arrow in this diagram is proportional to the number of defendants in that category.
The two defendants who went back to prison did so for the following reasons:
• 1 committed new felony
• 1 had a misdemeanor violation of probation
The 12 defendants who
remained in the prison
system did so for the
following reasons:
• 3 remain in prison
from their 2010
offense
• 1 committed a new
violent felony
• 7 committed new
regular felonies
• 1 committed a parole
violation
Defendants New to the Prison System
The 6 defendants who
remained in the prison
system did so for the
following reasons:
• 1 remains in prison
from his 2010 offense
• 1 committed a new
serious felony
• 4 committed new
regular felonies
These 19 defendants
ended up in prison for
the following reasons:
• 4 committed new
violent felonies
• 7 committed new
serious felonies
• 3 committed new
regular felonies
• 4 had misdemeanor
convictions that
constituted violations
of probation
• 1 had a violation of
probation
Future Crimes
After their 2010 offenses most of the burglars reoffended in some way. In fact, 69% of the studied
population were caught and prosecuted for another offense between 2010 and 2017. Only 26% committed
a serious or violent subsequent offense.
Conclusion
The 100 burglary cases studied in this report paint a complex picture. It is clear that burglary is not
typically a first-time offense, and is unlikely to be someone’s last offense. Despite common assumptions,
burglary is most likely to happen close to an offender’s home and in a wealthier neighborhood. There is
some hope that if given a chance, offenders who are given jail sentences can remain free from further
custody. Future analysis of this and other offender populations will assist prosecutors, investigators and
the public understand the nature of these crimes and the impact of the justice system.
These include 24 with burglary- and
theft- related felony convictions.
31 had no more convictions.
24 committed only new misdemeanor offenses.
45 committed new felonies.
19 had serious felonies.
7 had violent felonies.
These include 8 with res. burglary
convictions.
This includes 4 robberies, 1
carjacking, and 2 murders.